Statement 11 (TENK 2025:11): Adding the name of the researcher to the abstract of a presentation was not considered an RI violation 24.8.2026
Statement 10 (TENK 2025:10): The evidence and assessment could be disputed and no authorship violation was found 24.8.2026
Statement 8 (TENK 2025:8): A series of publications violated good research practices in a broad sense, but deficiencies in the investigation committee’s report and the Rector’s decision led TENK to refer the case back to the university for reconsideration 24.8.2026
Statement 7 (TENK 2025:7): Allegation concerning the organisation’s activities and guidelines in general did not require preliminary inquiry 24.8.2026
Statement 6 (TENK 2025:6): Intern’s contribution did not meet the authorship criteria, and consulting an expert from the same unit did not compromise the RI process 24.8.2026
Statement 1 (TENK 2025:1): Not a case of deliberate delaying or hampering of doctoral research – the university acted appropriately by separating RI issues from other allegations 24.8.2026
An article’s use of sources was irresponsible, but it did not constitute a RCR violation. TENK did not comment in advance on the content of the dissertation. (TENK 2021:18) 1.6.2022
The teachers’ activities on a course did not require an ethical review. The rector was allowed to transfer assessment of the case to the University Examination Board. (TENK 2021:13) 1.6.2022
